Poll |
 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 03:01:45
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
LordofHats wrote:The Sherman's problem was that it's gun was never strong enough. Compared to German counterparts, US tank design always lagged behind. For example, by the time the Sherman got upgunned to a 76mm, German tanks had been uparmored and were more resilient to that level of power (the same problem plagued US tank destroyers who other than the M10 never managed to stay ahead of the armor curve). Part of the problem was the existence of the Tank Destroyers, as McNair and Bruce insisted that the Sherman didn't need better firepower (especially McNair who single handedly hosed the entire Pershing program and delayed it by two years).
Other than its weak firepower compared to the armor of German tanks, the Sherman was still good. It's underpowered gun only really came out as a major problem when Panthers and Tigers were around. It did well enough against the hodgepodge of armored vehicles used by the Germans towards the end of the war and of course, outnumbered them.
The T-34 is widely regarded as the best tank of the war, and it's standard 76mm wasn't as good as the Shermans. This is okay, because neither the Sherman nor the T-34's primary role was to engage heavy German tanks at range.
The Germans succeeded in defeating France and made tremendous gains early on against the Soviets, despite having much weaker tanks, by driving their tanks through undefended and weakly defended points in the enemy line, then proceeding to destroy the enemy's logistics supply. This is the key threat tanks offer to the enemy.
By the time Panthers arrived on the field in any numbers, it was just in time to lose in Africa, and be defeated at Kursk. Ultimately, having a tank that's really good at blowing up enemy tanks didn't count for much. Having a mass of tanks with the capability to drive around enemy positions and cut off their line of supply is a huge deal, though. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Thats an interesting question though isn't it. What if the US had never put an embargo on Japan? Would Japan had stopped other than its efforts in China and IndoChina or would have it eventually gotten uppity for one reason or another?
It is an interesting question. I would think, given the Japanese Manifest Destiny, they couldn't have tolerated British and American controlled assets in Asia for long, though maybe they might have tolerated it as long as China was a resource drain... given that would have been forever, they might still be fighting there today, and no Pearl Harbour or Singapore would have ever happened. Automatically Appended Next Post: halonachos wrote:Without us there would be a lot less tanks out in the war.
The British received 17,184 sherman tanks, Russia received 4,102, New Zealand received 150 Sherman tanks, Australia got 3 Sherman tanks but they got 757 Lees/Grants, and Brazil got 53 Shermans among the Shermans given to Free France, and Canada was given 4 Shermans but were allowed to manufacture their own and they built 188(known as grizzlies). The US army used 19,247 Shermans by comparison and the USMC used 1,114.
Except the point that's been made multiple times in this thread is that the Soviets had the military capability to defeat the Nazis by themselves, at which point we're only looking at 4,000 tanks.
Now, 4,000 tanks might sound like a lot, but the Soviets produced 100,000 tanks of their own throughout the war, compared to 40,000 German tanks. At which point your argument is that 100,000 tanks couldn't have overcome the Nazis 40,000 tanks, but 104,000 tanks could. Which is silly.
Lend lease mattered, but it mattered in terms of trains and trucks, to aid the Soviet logistics. Which was certainly important, but people then need to understand that the trucks supplied to the Russians didn't allow them to match the Soviets, they were already equal with the Germans (who contrary to popular understanding were incredibly dependant on old fashioned supply systems, including a very large number of horses and carts). The trucks given to the Russians just gave them another edge.
We also gave a lot of supplies to Russia, we gave them 7,983 planes through the Alaska-Siberian Air Road and it allowed them to run intelligence as well.
The Soviets produced more than 150,000 of their own aircraft, well above the 120,000 produced by the Germans. The 7,000 supplied under lend lease were not a deciding factor.
Without the US the Christie suspension wouldn't of been developed either which means the T-34 wouldn't have been produced as it was and the same goes for some british tanks.
You already made this argument, and I already explained why it was wrong.
The question isn't "what would have happened if the US had never existed?", the question is "what would have happened if the US hadn't entered the war?"
The decision of the US in 1941 or any time after that to not enter the war, and to not aid the Soviets, doesn't change the private sale of tanks by Christie to the Soviets. You might even speculate that the US could have banned any arms sales to the Soviets... except that at the time of sale the US had banned arms sales to communist Russia. The tanks were illegally sold to a front company. Automatically Appended Next Post: purplefood wrote:I don't think Germany would have won.
They would have probably been able to keep their captured lands in Europe and maybe been pushed out of Africa.
Doubtful. The Soviet war machine, in and of itself, was superior to the Germans, and the Soviets were unlikely to seek peace terms once they were advancing on all fronts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Thats my point. I think the OP is asking what happens if the US stays out of the war. Therefore no Lend Lease and no shipments before that. remember, that occurred because Roosevelt effectively wanted us in the war. In this scenario something has happened and the US would be nuetral.
Alternatively, who's to say the US doesn't start selling munitions and materiale to Germany as well? Then you might really have a problem with MADE IN THE USA Panthers running about.
I really doubt the Germans would have given anyone the design and manufacturing skill to build their tanks. What's more likely is the US would have mostly supplied trucks and other logistics gear to Germany, same as they did for the Russia. It probably would have made a fair difference, but unlikely enough to decide the war.
Though, given the US dislike of both, what's most likely is that they wouldn't have sold to either.
I wonder if we could construct a reasonably plausible scenario where the US allies with Germany, not by committing troops but supplying equipment in a lend lease operation. Maybe increase US hostility to communism (which was already substantial)... to the point where they might have sent troops to support the whites in the civil war. After that failed they might have backed the Nazis in an offensive against the Soviets (much like backing Saddam against Iran). If you make the war just the Soviets vs the Nazis, and give the Nazis the lend lease supplies given to the allies, then you've got a very even contest (even if you then give the Soviets more warning, and so the early defeats aren't as bad). Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:There were a multitude of reasons for the lack of upgrading the Sherman. Air superiority, limited German armor capabilities, the vast numbers at which the Sherman could be produced, McNair being a douche etc.
Thing is, McNair saw what happened in France, and saw what happened in the early stages of Barbarossa. He understood that the primary threat of German tanks was to penetrate the enemy position and threaten encirclement. His proposed response to this makes sense, build dedicated AT units that are held in reserve, capable of responding very quickly to any German tank offensive, it's basically the origin of the defence in depth strategy widely accepted today. Meanwhile the US's own tanks were to continue to specialise in supporting infantry and making their own armoured breakthroughs.
This didn't work out because the Germans were never in a position to make another armoured offensive, given the situation on the Russian front and their crippled supplies. But preparing for the war the enemy would have liked to have fought, if they were capable of it isn't really a bad idea.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/06/01 03:02:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 03:02:34
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche
|
Indeed it would have.
It can also run off of despair so it would run forever...
|
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 03:10:13
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
I voted no. The Soviets already had the Germans in full retreat. If anything, Germany may have held out a little longer. But I don't think Stalin would have been worried over a few more million Russian deaths.
There's also the question of Japan. Stalin may have very well recruited soldiers from the various countries the Russians had gone through to get to Germany, sent them to eastern Russia, and gone straight for the Japanese mainland. I can't say how, but I'm fairly certain that some soviet engineers would have thought of a cheap way to make tanks ocean-worthy.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 03:34:42
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
sebster wrote:Thing is, McNair saw what happened in France, and saw what happened in the early stages of Barbarossa. He understood that the primary threat of German tanks was to penetrate the enemy position and threaten encirclement. His proposed response to this makes sense, build dedicated AT units that are held in reserve, capable of responding very quickly to any German tank offensive, it's basically the origin of the defence in depth strategy widely accepted today. Meanwhile the US's own tanks were to continue to specialise in supporting infantry and making their own armoured breakthroughs.
The Tank Destroyer doctrine was crippled by how the TD battalions were organized into other divisions and the impractical nature of organizing your anti-tank response in this method. The nature German deployed tanks later in the war made them even more ineffective than they already were. That and the design concept of behind most of the US tank destroyers proved unsuitable to fighting outside of North Africa. It might have actually worked with better integration into parent units and more sensible designs, all of that really just leads to the birth of the MBT and the death of WWII tank concepts. McNair's concept made sense on paper but not in practice, as he failed to fully grasp the concept of combined arms that the Germans had begun to use (and McNair himself continually pushed for towed AT guns rather than the self-propelled gun motor carriages push for by Bruce which onyl complicated the problems with his doctrine). McNair also generally just failed to fully understand how the German's won in France.
My comments on the Sherman were less about its intended role and more about how this idea that the Sherman was 'bad' came about. Indeed the entire idea that German's had awesome armor and the allies had crap armor leads from the problems with the armor curve and the effectiveness of German armor (which had a lot to do with crew training and unit organization as much as design). That and what Tigers and Panthers were encountered did quite a bit of damage early in their inception. Cruiser tanks as a concept failed as much as TD's. There were few opportunities in WWII for the cruiser concept to be employed and Shermans increasingly found themselves in slugging machines with German tanks or bogged down supporting infantry (the TD's ironically found themselves in the same position as their guns were excellent direct fire support, but they also ended up being used as field artillery), never fulfilling the originally intended role.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/01 03:35:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 05:36:15
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
British Tank Doctrine and US tank doctrine first used tanks as infantry support, however the British used tanks to engage other tanks compared to the US who used TD's to take on tanks.
The Matilda, while a nice armored vehicle was supposed to be probe to mechanical problems and the only really good tanks the british produced were supposed to be the Cromwell, Valentine, Comet, Churchill, and Challenger. I think there was something else about the payloads of the two countries. I believe that we had HE rounds while the UK didn't at first.
But Lord-loss is correct about why the Shermans were 'bad' (if I am reading him correctly). Shermans were not designed to be anti-tank but for the elimination of TD and infantry so they didn't have the proper weapons placed on them.
Shermans were great tanks, but they lack the aesthetics of the Tiger and Panther tanks. Personally I prefer the looks of the Tiger and the Porsche turret on the Tiger 2 compared to the Sherman. The Tiger also is big and scary looking so a lot of people may be using WYSIWYG when they compare tanks.
The numbers I got were rounded, that's the big issue. They aren't 100% exact and they also include all soldiers, pilots, drivers, and crew.
The Russians had the ability to beat the Germans, but the British lacked it. I guess its something that we may never know seeing as though there's a lot of unknown variables and courses of history that change.
For lack of a nail the shoe was lost, for lack of a shoe the horse was lost, for lack of a horse the rider was lost, for lack of a rider the battle was lost, for lack of the battle the war was lost.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 06:17:29
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
LordofHats wrote:The Tank Destroyer doctrine was crippled by how the TD battalions were organized into other divisions and the impractical nature of organizing your anti-tank response in this method.
Sure, but I think this was done largely because Germany never threatened to muster massed armour again.
That and the design concept of behind most of the US tank destroyers proved unsuitable to fighting outside of North Africa.
More to the point, most of the tank destroyers were severely undergunned, left with the same 75mm gun as the Sherman, which pretty much defeated the point entirely.
It might have actually worked with better integration into parent units and more sensible designs
True.
McNair's concept made sense on paper but not in practice,
True, I'm not defending the doctrine, merely the rationale for the doctrine. The thing to remember is that WWII really was a whole new form of war, and a lot of theories came out in how to best exploit and defeat the potential of these new mobile, hard hitting units like main battle tanks.
The idea of dedicated AT units was, I think, a fairly sensible response, and one of the first thoughts along the lines of defense in depth as a response to the threat of blitzkrieg.
It didn't really work, but in the general chaos and confusion of WWII, I don't think it really ranks up there with the worst of the decisions made.
Cruiser tanks as a concept failed as much as TD's.
I think it's fair to say that WWII as a whole was one big lesson for everyone involved that specialised tanks didn't really work out, and what was needed was a general purpose tank. Leading to, as you say, the era of the MBT.
That said, the Germans did fairly well with their dedicated tank destroyers. In large part because they actually faced dedicated, operational level tank offensives. Automatically Appended Next Post: halonachos wrote:British Tank Doctrine and US tank doctrine first used tanks as infantry support, however the British used tanks to engage other tanks compared to the US who used TD's to take on tanks.
Not just as infantry support, but in armoured offensives to penetrate enemy lines.
And it's important not to exaggerate the differences in the armour of the US and UK. While the British wanted front line tanks that could take out Panthers and Tigers and developed the Firefly as a result, they only placed on Firefly in each tank platoon - one out of every five. It wasn't as though they felt every tank had to be the equal of the Panther, either.
But Lord-loss is correct about why the Shermans were 'bad' (if I am reading him correctly). Shermans were not designed to be anti-tank but for the elimination of TD and infantry so they didn't have the proper weapons placed on them.
More to the point, I think there's far too much emphasis being placed on the role of tank killing in assessing the value of each tank. The T-34, which just about every military historian will tell you is the best tank of WWII, was also outgunned by the Panther, and didn't move to major production of the 85mm version until 1944. Yet it remained the best tank of the war because it assaulted positions and exploited breakthroughs better than the alternatives.
Shermans were great tanks, but they lack the aesthetics of the Tiger and Panther tanks. Personally I prefer the looks of the Tiger and the Porsche turret on the Tiger 2 compared to the Sherman. The Tiger also is big and scary looking so a lot of people may be using WYSIWYG when they compare tanks.
Definitely, there's a lot of 'rule of cool' in any nerd argument about real world military matters.
The Russians had the ability to beat the Germans, but the British lacked it. I guess its something that we may never know seeing as though there's a lot of unknown variables and courses of history that change.
Oh, no doubt that the British couldn't have done it. British industry was simply not comparable with German industry.
Had the US not been involved the most likely result is Britain continuing to hold it's own, while the Germans attack and are eventually overwhelmed by the Soviets. From there you'd likely see Soviet occupation of Western Europe. So I think we should all be very grateful the US did take part.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/01 06:32:49
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 10:55:36
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche
|
The Russians might have turned out okay... Unlikely though...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/01 10:55:53
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:23:47
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
halonachos wrote:British Tank Doctrine and US tank doctrine first used tanks as infantry support, however the British used tanks to engage other tanks compared to the US who used TD's to take on tanks.
The Matilda, while a nice armored vehicle was supposed to be probe to mechanical problems and the only really good tanks the british produced were supposed to be the Cromwell, Valentine, Comet, Churchill, and Challenger. I think there was something else about the payloads of the two countries. I believe that we had HE rounds while the UK didn't at first.
But Lord-loss is correct about why the Shermans were 'bad' (if I am reading him correctly). Shermans were not designed to be anti-tank but for the elimination of TD and infantry so they didn't have the proper weapons placed on them.
Shermans were great tanks, but they lack the aesthetics of the Tiger and Panther tanks. Personally I prefer the looks of the Tiger and the Porsche turret on the Tiger 2 compared to the Sherman. The Tiger also is big and scary looking so a lot of people may be using WYSIWYG when they compare tanks.
The numbers I got were rounded, that's the big issue. They aren't 100% exact and they also include all soldiers, pilots, drivers, and crew.
The Russians had the ability to beat the Germans, but the British lacked it. I guess its something that we may never know seeing as though there's a lot of unknown variables and courses of history that change.
For lack of a nail the shoe was lost, for lack of a shoe the horse was lost, for lack of a horse the rider was lost, for lack of a rider the battle was lost, for lack of the battle the war was lost.
You may have missed it, but I pointed out earlier that the Matilda II was immune to all German AT elements apart from the 88. That makes it "pretty good". That effectively makes it a very early "Tiger", except for the pop-gun.
|
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:25:12
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
More to the point, most of the tank destroyers were severely undergunned, left with the same 75mm gun as the Sherman, which pretty much defeated the point entirely.
Not just that but their relatively crappy armor. Armor was sacrificed for speed to quickly ambush and attack enemy tanks, but even before the Germans lost the ability to amasss tanks for breakthroughs the idea of finding some German tanks strolling around by their lonesome was slim, and the TD's were not well intigrated into a combined arms force (their entire concept was based of the idea of aggressively pursuing and destroying German tanks. McNair failed to realize that German tank breakthroughs went supported by artillery, aircraft, and mechanized infantry all things he failed to take into consideration when designing the concept.
The armor really came to be a big problem in Western Europe it where the idea of being able to roam around at speed and kill tanks became even more dubious due to terrain. I don't argue against the rationale for a TD doctrine, just that the one McNair and Bruce developed was not one that had been well thought out or integrated into an armed force.
Firefly's were developed for use with Cruiser tanks, as the standard Cromwell lacked the firepower to deal with Tigers and Panthers. The idea was that they'd cruise with the Cromwells, but of course the opportunity to employ cruisers rarely came (the Firefly was really just a stop gap for the Comet and other heavy cruisers). And the British did have Tank Destroyers, as their doctrine didn't have tanks fighting tanks but supporting infantry and cruising. They had their share of M10's, and upgraded them later in the war with 17 pdrs to create the Achilles.
British and US armor doctrines really just through around different names but functionally were more or less the same. The suffered the same problem against German armor, in that their standard tanks often ended up having to fight them because there were never enough tank destroyers and because you often didn't have time in an advance to simply wait for a TD to stroll up and kill that panzer that's in your way.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/01 11:28:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:26:49
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Hammer of Witches
|
Yes, the British built one excellent tank, but unfortunately, it was spread across three or four separate tanks.
|
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:27:56
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche
|
That takes brains that does...
|
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:30:44
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
LordofHats wrote:sebster wrote:Thing is, McNair saw what happened in France, and saw what happened in the early stages of Barbarossa. He understood that the primary threat of German tanks was to penetrate the enemy position and threaten encirclement. His proposed response to this makes sense, build dedicated AT units that are held in reserve, capable of responding very quickly to any German tank offensive, it's basically the origin of the defence in depth strategy widely accepted today. Meanwhile the US's own tanks were to continue to specialise in supporting infantry and making their own armoured breakthroughs.
The Tank Destroyer doctrine was crippled by how the TD battalions were organized into other divisions and the impractical nature of organizing your anti-tank response in this method. The nature German deployed tanks later in the war made them even more ineffective than they already were. That and the design concept of behind most of the US tank destroyers proved unsuitable to fighting outside of North Africa. It might have actually worked with better integration into parent units and more sensible designs, all of that really just leads to the birth of the MBT and the death of WWII tank concepts. McNair's concept made sense on paper but not in practice, as he failed to fully grasp the concept of combined arms that the Germans had begun to use (and McNair himself continually pushed for towed AT guns rather than the self-propelled gun motor carriages push for by Bruce which onyl complicated the problems with his doctrine). McNair also generally just failed to fully understand how the German's won in France.
My comments on the Sherman were less about its intended role and more about how this idea that the Sherman was 'bad' came about. Indeed the entire idea that German's had awesome armor and the allies had crap armor leads from the problems with the armor curve and the effectiveness of German armor (which had a lot to do with crew training and unit organization as much as design). That and what Tigers and Panthers were encountered did quite a bit of damage early in their inception. Cruiser tanks as a concept failed as much as TD's. There were few opportunities in WWII for the cruiser concept to be employed and Shermans increasingly found themselves in slugging machines with German tanks or bogged down supporting infantry (the TD's ironically found themselves in the same position as their guns were excellent direct fire support, but they also ended up being used as field artillery), never fulfilling the originally intended role.
Agreed. The attempts to hurredly upgun the Sherman in late 44 and get the Pershing (protoPatton) into production reflect the American's gaining that knowledge as well. Like Army procurement during the Civil War, a few guys can really screw it up, but thats most bureaucracies and the Germans screwed up often as well (Ferdinands, Tigers, and the whole overengineered concept for everything).
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:33:53
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Hammer of Witches
|
purplefood wrote:That takes brains that does...
It was a cunning trick to fool the Nazis into thinking they had better tanks. It worked!
|
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:34:09
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
htj wrote:Yes, the British built one excellent tank, but unfortunately, it was spread across three or four separate tanks.
In the Brits defense, the Centurian was everything and more, it just came out too late to be effective.
The Americans had copies of the T-34 they reviewed. Its ashame they didn't take them and Americanfy them, but again bureaucracies get in the way.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:44:14
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Hammer of Witches
|
Frazzled wrote:htj wrote:Yes, the British built one excellent tank, but unfortunately, it was spread across three or four separate tanks.
In the Brits defense, the Centurian was everything and more, it just came out too late to be effective.
The Americans had copies of the T-34 they reviewed. Its ashame they didn't take them and Americanfy them, but again bureaucracies get in the way.
That's true, to be fair. At least they learnt from their mistakes.
Didn't know about the T-34 thing, it would have been interesting to see what the US would have done with it.
|
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 11:59:06
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
I remember a story -- it may be apocryphal -- in which the Soviets went to visit the German tank proving grounds before the war when they were still friends.
The Germans rolled out their Pz1-4 series and drove them around a bit, and shot off the machine-guns, 20mm and 37mm cannon and the 75mm short howitzer.
The Soviets, who already had the T34 in prototype and KV1 in production, said, "Very nice. Now why don't you show us your real tanks?"
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 12:34:31
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kilkrazy wrote:I remember a story -- it may be apocryphal -- in which the Soviets went to visit the German tank proving grounds before the war when they were still friends.
The Germans rolled out their Pz1-4 series and drove them around a bit, and shot off the machine-guns, 20mm and 37mm cannon and the 75mm short howitzer.
The Soviets, who already had the T34 in prototype and KV1 in production, said, "Very nice. Now why don't you show us your real tanks?"
I have heard something similar.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 13:06:46
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader
Behind you
|
One of my Military history magazines conjectured that if the USA hadn't intervened in WW2, Japan would have pretty much captured Asia and part of Australia. Australia is pretty easy to land on, and without the carriers the USA had, the allies would have had a tough time trying to match the japanese air capacity in the pacific.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 13:21:10
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Doctadeth wrote:One of my Military history magazines conjectured that if the USA hadn't intervened in WW2, Japan would have pretty much captured Asia and part of Australia. Australia is pretty easy to land on, and without the carriers the USA had, the allies would have had a tough time trying to match the japanese air capacity in the pacific.
What if the radar blips were treated as a potential enemy attack on December 7?
What if Britain has decided after Dunkirk that "Meh, we're out. Once is enough"
What if Italy hadn't gotten uppity in Africa?
What if Poland held out longer?
What if the US had joined the war in 1940 using German raiding on shipping as an excuse? We got crotchety about that sort of thing.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 14:03:48
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
Seattle, WA
|
I would suggest to those who are interested in Soviet Union's contribution to WW2 to read Colonel David M Glantz's books. He is an US army intelligence expert who specialized in USSR. He translated many declassified Soviet documents while researching for his books.
The total USSR factory production is actually lower than Germany, but the Soviets organized their factories for full wartime production early during the war. Germany didn't fully organize for wartime production system till, I think, 1944. By then it was too late. This was from Colonel Glantz's book "When Titans Clashed".
The T-34 initially was armed with a 76mm cannon but in late 1943 they were upgraded to 85mm which were nearly comparable to that of the vaunted German 88mm.
German tanks such as the Tiger, Tiger II, Panther and many heavy tanks were mechanically unreliable. Panthers were prone to catch on fire. Tigers require special equipment to get to the front, they don't even fit on a normal railcar without changing out tracks. When Panthers were first rushed into battle, at Kursk, nearly all 400 of them were rendered useless within a week. Most of them broke down, hit mines or stopped by determined Soviet infantry.
I think the anti-Soviet propaganda of the Cold War still lingers today. Colonel Glantz quoted in his book that even during the initial phases of Barbarosa, the Soviet army actually stopped several German offenses and actually threw some parts of the German army back. The Germans won during the Summer campaign, but the Soviets won during the Winter campaign. This continued until Stalingrad culminated in a decisive Soviet victory.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 14:19:08
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Major
far away from Battle Creek, Michigan
|
inquisitor_bob wrote:I would suggest to those who are interested in Soviet Union's contribution to WW2 to read Colonel David M Glantz's books. He is an US army intelligence expert who specialized in USSR. He translated many declassified Soviet documents while researching for his books.
Inquisitor_bob is right. Glantz is the gold standard for military history. Keegan and the rest of those airport bookstore guys are no where near this level.
|
PROSECUTOR: By now, there have been 34 casualties.
Elena Ceausescu says: Look, and that they are calling genocide.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 14:46:37
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Hammer of Witches
|
olympia wrote:inquisitor_bob wrote:I would suggest to those who are interested in Soviet Union's contribution to WW2 to read Colonel David M Glantz's books. He is an US army intelligence expert who specialized in USSR. He translated many declassified Soviet documents while researching for his books.
Inquisitor_bob is right. Glantz is the gold standard for military history. Keegan and the rest of those airport bookstore guys are no where near this level.
Whilst I'm not disputing Glantz superiority, I think it's a bit unfair to refer to Keegan as a airport bookstore guy. He's a hugely influencial, Oxford educated historian, after all. Give the man a little credit.
|
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 15:42:55
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You may have missed it, but I pointed out earlier that the Matilda II was immune to all German AT elements apart from the 88. That makes it "pretty good". That effectively makes it a very early "Tiger", except for the pop-gun.
Except for the fact that it was too heavy for the engine it had, took a long time to make(they had to grind away thick parts). It was also twin engine and that meant the crew had to maintain two engines instead of just one. It also meant that one could go out while the other one ran perfectly fine. It lacked High Explosive shells, was slow, and the steering was a bit off. Then later on the TD used by the Germans was replaced and they could engage them at range. Before that it took an anti-aircraft gun.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 15:55:19
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
halonachos wrote:ArbeitsSchu wrote:You may have missed it, but I pointed out earlier that the Matilda II was immune to all German AT elements apart from the 88. That makes it "pretty good". That effectively makes it a very early "Tiger", except for the pop-gun.
Except for the fact that it was too heavy for the engine it had, took a long time to make(they had to grind away thick parts). It was also twin engine and that meant the crew had to maintain two engines instead of just one. It also meant that one could go out while the other one ran perfectly fine. It lacked High Explosive shells, was slow, and the steering was a bit off. Then later on the TD used by the Germans was replaced and they could engage them at range. Before that it took an anti-aircraft gun.
Of course they started using "an anti-aircraft gun" for just such a purpose by Africa. Thanks for nothing Rommel.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 17:55:03
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
htj wrote:olympia wrote:inquisitor_bob wrote:I would suggest to those who are interested in Soviet Union's contribution to WW2 to read Colonel David M Glantz's books. He is an US army intelligence expert who specialized in USSR. He translated many declassified Soviet documents while researching for his books.
Inquisitor_bob is right. Glantz is the gold standard for military history. Keegan and the rest of those airport bookstore guys are no where near this level.
Whilst I'm not disputing Glantz superiority, I think it's a bit unfair to refer to Keegan as a airport bookstore guy. He's a hugely influencial, Oxford educated historian, after all. Give the man a little credit. 
Who was also a lecturer at Sandhurst for years.
Some of his books have aged a bit, but there isn't much in them that would have been dubious at the time of writing. (I have an issue with his treatment of British navy signalling during the Napoleonic Wars, but that's a different matter.)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 18:05:56
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
One thing also heled allies in war - simple mechanic. It was much more simplified to change some part on Sherman or T-34 than Panzer or Tiger. The Sherman Mechanic joked about that he only need one tool for the whole tank
And US solders had big advantage with their rifle ( M1 Garand ) which have 8 rounds instead of 5, and it can fire semi-automatic.
Another pain for the Germans was the resistance in France, USSR and Yugoslavia.
But to be fair, one German solder then was worth like 5 allied in training, moral and determination. Italian solders where uselles ( in one battle against French Italians lost 631 killed, 2,631 wounded, 616 missing while French had 40 killed, 84 wounded, 150 missing. )
|
For Emperor and Imperium!!!!
None shall stand against the Crusade of the Righteous!!!
Kanluwen wrote: "I like the Tau. I just don't like people misconstruing things to say that it means that they're somehow a huge galactic threat. They're not. They're a threat to the Imperium of Man like sharks are a threat to the US Army."
"Pain is temporary, honor is forever"
Emperor of Mankind:
"The day I have a sit-down with a pansy elf, magic mushroom, or commie frog is the day I put a bolt shell in my head."
in your name it shall be done"
My YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/2SSSR2
Viersche wrote:
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
the Emperor might be the greatest psyker that ever lived, but he doesn't have the specialized training that a Grey Knight has. Also he doesn't have a Grey Knight's unshakable faith in the Emperor.
The Emperor doesn't have a GKs unshakable faith in the Emperor which is....basically himself?
Ronin wrote:
"Brother Coa (and the OP Tadashi) is like, the biggest IoM fanboy I can think of here. It's like he IS from the Imperium, sent back in time and across dimensions."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:06:17
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
I think Germany would've won the war had the US allied with the Germans. Russia would've been a tough nut to crack, but with all of the airpower the Americans could muster, Russian factories and tanks would be reduced heavily.
Russia would be divided much like Germany was and would probably end up being ground down.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:18:24
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
What if the Germans and Russians had teamed up against the USA?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:23:05
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche
|
A German Blitzkrieg through Canada and into North America may have worked fairly well if combined with an attack from the south by Mexico at the same time... I'm not sure what forces the USA had to protect itself against a land invasion however.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/01 21:23:30
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:31:29
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kilkrazy wrote:What if the Germans and Russians had teamed up against the USA?
What Japan did to Pearl Harbor, only with 15 fast attack carriers.
Germans thought they were badass with battleships. Battleships = target practice.
On the positive this develops the interesting scenario of US/Japan against USSR/Germany. Automatically Appended Next Post: purplefood wrote:A German Blitzkrieg through Canada and into North America may have worked fairly well if combined with an attack from the south by Mexico at the same time...
I'm not sure what forces the USA had to protect itself against a land invasion however.
How exactly are they going to do that? They have no transport capacity and frequently WWI navy against the power that became the most powerful navy ever conceived by mankind in two years. You cannot blitzkrieg through Alaska. Its, er all mountains. You need aricraft to get around much of it, and thats now.
Are you confusing this with Red Dawn?
Wolverines!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/01 21:34:35
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
|